Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

Raising corporation tax mans a fool its just going to drive businessout of the UK and cut investment which will lead to higherunemployment

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

You've read it all, have you? Every page?http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf

Our manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out oftaxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest onthe foundation of sound finances. Labour will therefore set the targetof eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending withinfive years.But government must have a laser-like focus on how we earn,as well as how we spend. At the same time as eliminating the currentdeficit, Labour will invest in our future, to ensure faster growth andhelp us to earn our way as a country again.

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

You've read it all, have you? Every page?

I skipped some of the waffle.

This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -

We will drop the Conservatives?Great Repeal Bill, replacing itwith an EU Rights and ProtectionsBill that will ensure there is nodetrimental change to workers?rights, equality law, consumerrights or environmental protectionsas a result of Brexit.

So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going towork? They really are a bunch of clowns.

Post by The Todalhttp://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf

And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the casebecause jam has to be paid for.

The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject andit is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.

But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisationshas been omitted.

Post by The Todalwith all current spending paid for out oftaxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest onthe foundation of sound finances. Labour will therefore set the targetof eliminating the government?s deficit on day-to-day spending withinfive years.But government must have a laser-like focus on how we earn,as well as how we spend. At the same time as eliminating the currentdeficit, Labour will invest in our future, to ensure faster growth andhelp us to earn our way as a country again.

And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the casebecause jam has to be paid for.The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject andit is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisationshas been omitted.

Nor does it take into account the flight of people & businesses escapingthe increased tax burden...

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

You've read it all, have you? Every page?

I skipped some of the waffle.This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -We will drop the Conservatives?Great Repeal Bill, replacing itwith an EU Rights and ProtectionsBill that will ensure there is nodetrimental change to workers?rights, equality law, consumerrights or environmental protectionsas a result of Brexit.So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going towork? They really are a bunch of clowns.

No, their proposed legislation would indeed have to transfer EUlegislation into UK law (ie, those parts that we want to keep) butinstead of a Great Repeal Bill that is little more than a series ofalgorithms, importing EU data without subjecting it to closeparliamentary scrutiny, it will be a considered attempt to focus on therights that we want to protect.

They aren't a bunch of clowns.

It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it isanother Michael Foot longest suicide note in history. All they can say,with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that thepolicies are unaffordable. We can't afford a proper NHS or a properlyfunded education system, the Tories tell us.

Yes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunatelyour wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of ourchildren, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive theeducation that they need.

Post by The TodalYes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunatelyour wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of ourchildren, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive theeducation that they need.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.htmlTory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020Changes to the Government’s school funding formula could result inthe equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London overthe next three years, a new analysis showed today.

The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn'tthe only place that matters.

Post by The TodalYes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunatelyour wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of ourchildren, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive theeducation that they need.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.htmlTory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020Changes to the Government?s school funding formula could result inthe equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London overthe next three years, a new analysis showed today.

The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn'tthe only place that matters.

Not having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a localstory complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash thanschools in other parts of the country.

That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs thesame-ish to educate them where ever they live.

Post by The TodalYes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunatelyour wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of ourchildren, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive theeducation that they need.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.htmlTory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020Changes to the Government?s school funding formula could result inthe equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London overthe next three years, a new analysis showed today.

The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn'tthe only place that matters.

Not having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a localstory complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash thanschools in other parts of the country.That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs thesame-ish to educate them where ever they live.

No not really - premises costs, inner London weighting, higher enery use (in Scotland and the sticks) etc. all play a part in the cost, however in principle it should be broadly the same.

Post by YellowNot having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a localstory complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash thanschools in other parts of the country.That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs thesame-ish to educate them where ever they live.

No not really - premises costs, inner London weighting, higher eneryuse (in Scotland and the sticks) etc. all play a part in the cost,however in principle it should be broadly the same.

School funding is heavily weighted by a 'deprivation index' calculatedaccording to local socio-economic factors, one of which is the number ofpupils whose first language is not English. London schools obviouslybenefit disproportionately from this.

Post by The TodalIt's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it isanother Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.

As non-sequiturs go, that's a pretty good one.

Post by The TodalAll they can say,with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that thepolicies are unaffordable. We can't afford a proper NHS or a properlyfunded education system, the Tories tell us.

It's all about choices. We can have those things of course. But wecan't have them *as well as* abolishing student tuition fees,reintroducing student grants, recruiting 10000 extra police officers,3000 extra prison officers and 1000 extra border guards, making schoolmeals free, and renationalising railways, fuel companies, the RoyalMail, water companies etc etc ad infinitum.

I skipped some of the waffle.This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -We will drop the Conservatives?Great Repeal Bill, replacing itwith an EU Rights and ProtectionsBill that will ensure there is nodetrimental change to workers?rights, equality law, consumerrights or environmental protectionsas a result of Brexit.So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going towork? They really are a bunch of clowns.

No, their proposed legislation would indeed have to transfer EUlegislation into UK law (ie, those parts that we want to keep) butinstead of a Great Repeal Bill that is little more than a series ofalgorithms, importing EU data without subjecting it to closeparliamentary scrutiny, it will be a considered attempt to focus on therights that we want to protect.

OK. So rather than just transfer it all over and then decide what wewant to keep and what we want to change, Labour's plan is to go throughit all and only transfer what we want to keep, and then have newlegislation for what we want to change.

First, how is doing it that way better and second, how is it going to beachieved in the time scales?

Tens of thousands of bits of legislation and Labour's plan is to gothrough it all and pass new legislation to replace it, and have it inplace for 29 March 2019.

Does that not risk the country waking up one day with, in some areas,no legislation in place?

Post by The TodalIt's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it isanother Michael Foot longest suicide note in history. All they can say,with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that thepolicies are unaffordable.

The Labour Party leadership have produced the manifesto we all expected.

Whether or not the public will go for it, we will find out in a fewweek's time.

Post by The TodalWe can't afford a proper NHS or a properlyfunded education system, the Tories tell us.

Post by The TodalThey aren't a bunch of clowns.It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it isanother Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.

It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.

Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're aTory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.

Is there something wrong or morally corrupt about enjoying what you'veworked for, and redistributing your wealth how you choose?

I'm flattered that you come to me to seek such advice, as if I was yourrabbi. My answer to your question is no. And I very much enjoy my visitsto the many excellent National Trust destinations. Sissinghurst haswonderful gardens which change month by month. On 8th June it would bebest to set off as early as possible so that you can spend the whole daythere and follow it with a nice dinner at a local gastropub.

Post by The TodalThey aren't a bunch of clowns.It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it isanother Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.

It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.

Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're aTory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.

Is there something wrong or morally corrupt about enjoying what you'veworked for, and redistributing your wealth how you choose?

I'm flattered that you come to me to seek such advice, as if I was yourrabbi. My answer to your question is no. And I very much enjoy my visitsto the many excellent National Trust destinations. Sissinghurst haswonderful gardens which change month by month. On 8th June it would bebest to set off as early as possible so that you can spend the whole daythere and follow it with a nice dinner at a local gastropub.

Sound advice. In my constituency, my vote makes not a ha'porth ofdifference. If they put a blue rosette on my wheelbarrow it would getelected.

Post by The TodalOh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're aTory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.

Well, yes. Except for the fact that many of the new Tory voters havenever been anywhere near a National Trust property and wouldn't know acream tea if it jumped on them.

IN MEMORIAM: poem for a dead kraut nazoid-----------------------------------------There once was a Nazi named KuhnenWho never had sex with a woman.He sucked dicks instead,Got AIDS, now he's dead...Good riddance to the filthy sub-human!

--In puking memory of the cocksucking nazoid MichaelKuhnen, who led the German neo-Nazi movement, and, muchto the joy of decent people everywhere, died of AIDS.http://tinyurl.com/bnrca2e

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

You've read it all, have you? Every page?

I skipped some of the waffle.This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -We will drop the Conservatives?Great Repeal Bill, replacing itwith an EU Rights and ProtectionsBill that will ensure there is nodetrimental change to workers?rights, equality law, consumerrights or environmental protectionsas a result of Brexit.So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going towork? They really are a bunch of clowns.

Post by The Todalhttp://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf

And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the casebecause jam has to be paid for.The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject andit is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisationshas been omitted.

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we weretold. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?

I reckon they've got no idea how it's all going to be paid for and needtime to whistle up some ways that sound good, or else hope that thematter gets submerged under other election events so it never has to beanswered. They will then say 'It's all in the manifesto, have you readit?' as if that gives the answers, which of course it doesn't.

The top 5% of earners cannot possibly pay for all the things Labourwants to do. It's very convenient thing for them to say, because ofcourse it's not you or I that will be paying - let the rich bastardspay. But of course they do already. They're already taxed at prettypunitive rates, and any extra government spending would have to begenerated by taxing them a lot more, which in turn will lead to themleaving the country or finding legitimate ways to avoid paying, of whichthere are quite a few.

It's pie-in-the-sky economics.

And we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects andhow they're going to be funded.

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we weretold. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?I reckon they've got no idea how it's all going to be paid for and needtime to whistle up some ways that sound good, or else hope that thematter gets submerged under other election events so it never has to beanswered. They will then say 'It's all in the manifesto, have you readit?' as if that gives the answers, which of course it doesn't.The top 5% of earners cannot possibly pay for all the things Labourwants to do. It's very convenient thing for them to say, because ofcourse it's not you or I that will be paying - let the rich bastardspay. But of course they do already. They're already taxed at prettypunitive rates, and any extra government spending would have to begenerated by taxing them a lot more, which in turn will lead to themleaving the country or finding legitimate ways to avoid paying, of whichthere are quite a few.It's pie-in-the-sky economics.

That was a party political broadcast by Norman Wells. This broadcastwill be repeated regularly and is also available on catch-up.

Post by Norman WellsAnd we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects andhow they're going to be funded.

Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more thanwe'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.

Post by JNugentAnd the subsidies?And the subsidies for other nationalised and municipalised industries?

Well the railways are still subsidised now, but~1945 - 1995 half a century, passengers well down despite an increased population and greater prosperity, freight halved. Regular accidents.1997 - 2017 two decades - passengers doubled (pretty much to capacity) and freight up 50%. No passengers killed for over ten years.

Post by JNugentAnd the subsidies for other nationalised ands municipalised industries?

Hey, I was just trying to be helpful. You asked about subsidies to British Rail, and I provided a link to a government-produced document showing the annual subsidy, year-on-year, from 1985/1986 through to 2015/2016. It therefore covers the decade or so prior to privatisation, and the period since. Have a look at it and draw your own conclusions.

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we weretold. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we weretold. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?

No mystery, it's all on the Labour Party website.http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal howit is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we weretold. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?

No mystery, it's all on the Labour Party website.http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing paymentsto the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalisedindustry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.

The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing paymentsto the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalisedindustry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.

The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing paymentsto the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalisedindustry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.

Profits? If bills are going to go down, were are these profits going tocome from?

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay fornationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the nationalgrid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?

SNIPJeremy Corbyn has three sons, when they were younger he asked them all what they wanted for Christmas.The first son said "Daddy, I would like a train set." so Jeremy went out and bought all the UK railways and put it on his credit card.The second son said "Daddy, I would like a paddling pool.", so Jeremy went out and bought all the water companies and put it on his credit card.The third son said "Daddy I would like a cowboy outfit.", so Jeremy turned the Labour Party into one...

Post by YellowI notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will payfor nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and thenational grid.I guess they would just borrow the cash?I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending wentthat it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works fornationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would revealhow it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait withinterest (as will the lenders).

The word Manifesto no longer means what it used to mean, nowadays it issimply a list of lies told in order to gain votes, take the Conservatives'perrenial 'immigration below 10,000' which is wheeled out every time there'san election - they've no intention of even attempting to implement it.Trump's bullshit about building a 'Great wall' and banning Muslims fromentering America - He, and the half dozen Yanks with a brain knew this couldnever happen but it still got him elected president. All political partiesare full of shit so highlighting one particular lie over a different liepromised by their opponents is a complete waste of time.